Tag Archives: right wing

Though I didn’t care for all his politics, I enjoyed listening to President Obama as a public speaker. I’m sure some of that credit belongs to good speech writers, but still… I felt like here’s a guy who can make a coherent case for the position he holds, even if I don’t agree with him.

I tried to imagine how this interview might go with the current administration:

“Have you ever read Reinhold Niebuhr?”
“Who?” Trump smirked. “Is that an op-ed guy from some fake news media site? I don’t—“
“He’s a philosopher, Mister President.”
“Oh.” Trump shakes his head. “The thing with those guys is—I mean, it’s great to have people who sit around thinking really deep about stuff, but in business you don’t have time for, you know, I’m going to—what about the human condition and how does it play into—you’re there to win, and be great, and make good deals.”
“Of course,” I respond. “But wouldn’t you say there’s—“
“You know, we have a lot of guys that want to read this or that guy, what does he think about, I don’t know, poverty or diplomacy or whatever. But as a successful businessman, I learned the value of fast action—you just go after it and get it done, which—I think that’s kind of a philosophy of it’s own. Maybe the best philosophy. I wrote a book about it, you know. The Art of the Deal. Have you read it?”
He flashes a grin. “I’ll turn the tables on you. What do you think of Donald Trump?”
Before I can come up with an appropriate response, he laughs, waves me off with one hand, and goes on. “Not that it really matters. I know how many copies it sold. One of the best books in America, the best. What was your question again?”

To any of my friends on the Right, #sorrynotsorry and I hope some day the President proves me wrong. I look forward to that day like a thirsting man in the desert crawling toward an oasis.

To my friends on the Left, don’t become what you hate about the Right—because there’s a lot of mindless groupthink on your side too.

I long for the return of politics where we can communicate with one another and actually discuss the merits and concerns of any given policy or change.

I’m beyond tired of party-line foul-atics, where all that matters is your slavish devotion to whatever your party’s gods and goddesses deem correct. “I support this initiative.” Why? “Because it’s what’s best. I saw a piece by (Alex Jones / Rachel Maddow), so I know this is what the country needs.”

Whether it’s Tomi Lahren getting fired on the Right because she disagreed with the party norm about abortion, or people dog-piling something Bill Maher or Jon Stewart says which goes against the flow, tribalism fuels this kind of “politics” instead of thought.
We have had eloquent Presidents in the past, and we can again. Fair point.

More importantly, we also have been an eloquent, educated, considerate people in the past. We can become that again.

In my time as an aircrew member in the Air Force, the most valuable training I received is a course called Crew Resource Management, or CRM. The short version is “this is how you talk to people so that you probably don’t die.”

Put multiple humans together on an airplane (or a flight of single-seat aircraft working in conjunction) and communication becomes essential, vital to both mission success and safety.

Even though we’re all in the same metal tube hurtling through the sky, getting this many people to communicate in a critical situation is more difficult than it seems. (This crew was awesome at it.)

In CRM, we learn the common causes of human error, the contributing factors in safety accidents and incidents, the price of breakdowns in communication, and the expensive cost in equipment and human lives when someone doesn’t take the time to listen to and recognize the importance of information that could avert disaster.

All too often, a jet slams into a mountain or wanders into an unsafe situation even despite the fact that people on board were aware of the problem and vocalized the impending danger. That’s the other side of this training—learning that you might be the one standing in the way of safety, ignoring the information that could keep your mission from failing or save your life.

We must be able to talk and get each other’s attention. We have to be able to focus everyone’s minds on the key bits of information that might mean life or death.

To that end, we learn key words and phrases that every aircrew member knows. “I am concerned about what we are doing right now. I feel unsafe because of this situation. I don’t have a clear picture of what is going on and where we are headed as a crew.”

The phrase to trump all others? “Knock it off.”

In a training environment, that means “Stop playing whatever game or exercise we’re doing, everybody shut up a minute, and let’s make sure we’re doing the right thing.”

When a crisis develops, it means “everybody, cease all the distractions and focus on the critical situation taking place right now.”

One might think that the training solves all our problems, but that’s not the case. Despite every aircrew member receiving the same recurring briefings and classes, some people still don’t get it and drop the ball when a moment of miscommunication arises.

I’ve said all these terms to an aircraft commander on behalf of a dozen peers in the back end of the jet, in conjunction with support and agreement from other officers onboard, only to watch the guy in charge ignore what’s an ingrained response. Sometimes we get stubbornly convinced of how right we are and nothing can dissuade us, no matter how many people say it, no matter how they put it into words.

CRM and Knock-It-Off are designed to help us see those weaknesses, but they can’t fix everything.

This morning I read headlines about George H. W. Bush and some of his negative thoughts on President Trump’s performance. Apparently, George W. Bush has also expressed some disapproval about this administration’s performance.

Judging by the comments section, both the Bushes are traitors, or political hacks, or so arrogant as to presume that the Oval Office was owed to one of their family members. It’s an all-too-familiar turning upon and tearing apart a member of the pack when they go against the grain.

I used to be amazed watching conservatives eat their own—shifting from “they’re awesome” to vilifying and condemning as traitors anyone that didn’t support the party’s pet issue or candidate.
No one is safe from this shifting allegiance. Go against the accepted view, and you’re a RINO, you’re the swamp, you’re bleeding from your whatever, you’re a hack, you’re a liberal in disguise, you’re finally revealing your true colors and you should have been hated all along.

Whatever you are, you’re never a person expressing your convictions or concerns out of faithful devotion to what you understand as conservative ideals. You’re never a person asking serious questions because you want your political party to succeed and do well.

I guess let’s add both George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush to the ever-growing list of people not Right enough for the Right.

Reagan himself could rise from the grave today, declare his disappointment with what the Right has become, and yet people would say, “I always knew he was just another big-mouthed Hollywood blowhard actor who thinks their movie career means people should listen to them.”

Well, Hollywood, there you go again…

This is why I can’t identify with anything coming from the Right Wing anymore… because for so many of them, it’s a one-strike, you’re-out system demanding mindless devotion to whatever the core of the party does or says. Agree or get out of here, you faker.

We have to be able to talk in order to succeed. We have to be able to raise concerns and those need to be addressed in a serious manner if there’s going to be a foundation of mutual trust within the party’s ranks.

We make fun of the Left for expecting everyone to fall in line on certain issues (try surviving as a pro-life Democrat, for example). We’re just as guilty if not worse.

Conservatives, I am concerned about what we are doing right now. I feel that our party is moving into unsafe territory, putting ourselves at risk. Many of us in the base don’t have a clear picture of where we are headed as a party.

I don’t think there’s anyone I know who actively and clearly despises me. And I’m happy to say I can’t think of a single person for whom I feel animosity or hatred. “Hate” in reference to a person is a strong and heavy term, one that shouldn’t be used casually, bandied about like some new teenage slang.
Sadly, it’s all too easy to drop the H-bomb when we’re talking about people in general, especially when they differ from us.

And that’s how I discovered yesterday that apparently a full quarter of the earth’s population hates me. Not the best news, that. But it was Monday, so it kind of figures.

To clarify, I saw some appalling Facebook comments on a Right-Wing news article. And like the buffoon I am, I waded into discussion of politics and religion on social media.

But how could I not? These freedom-loving patriots were deeply concerned that I might be unaware of the danger I face daily. They felt a compelling need to set right my misguided notions about liberty and religion.

The background? An Army Reservist who is also a Muslim was kicked off a gun range in Oklahoma. The range owners have a “Muslim-Free Zone” sign posted, and the customer claimed that after he self-identified as a Muslim, their treatment of him went from calm and professional to rude and hostile. For their part, the owners claim he was ejected from the range because he acted “belligerently” and not because of his faith.

Good, since that would be illegal discrimination based on religion.

So the Right-Wing news site had a steady flow of comments ranging from “He’s lucky they didn’t ask him to hold the targets” to “You guys realize he’s an American servicemember, right?” And it was the former variety that I couldn’t resist replying to.

Profound statements like:

“Islam isn’t a race!!!! It’s a violent oppressive cult that they joined and/or remain in willingly. Facts > opinions.”

(Of course, Christianity isn’t a race either. It’s a religion people join or remain in willingly. And it, like Islam, is protected by the first amendment, so discrimination against someone based on that is frowned upon and also illegal. And that is a fact, not an opinion.)

“Muslim isn’t a religion. He wasn’t denied service because of his religion but his way of life, to kill anyone who’s not Muslim.”

(In this case, his “way of life” was to serve our country and put himself in harm’s way to defend our way of life… something I feel fairly certain the commenter is unwilling or unable to do. And “Islam” is a religion, and “muslim” is an adherent of that religion. So when a store posts a sign or tries to enforce a “muslim-free zone” policy, that should offend American sensibilities if we truly believe what the Founding Fathers said about all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights. You know, all that super patriotic claptrap the Right pulls out when we defend Christians.)

“To all of you that are offended by everything that doesn’t comply with your own interests, or beliefs… stay the hell home, and board up your damn windows. This is used to be America “land of the free” until a bunch of whiney @$$es started crying about stupid $#!+”

(To be fair, maybe this guy feels the way I do, and all these people afraid of Islamic extremists they’re convinced are about to invade the nation are a bunch of whiners that should board up their windows and hide in their bomb shelters.
But I assumed he meant the whiners who see a sign saying, “You’re not welcome here” and question it. The whiners who question commenters that advocate wholesale murder of Muslims for the crime of existing while telling me it’s the Muslims I should be afraid of. The ones who say “They should go back to their own country” while forgetting that at some point, that could have been said to the vast majority of American ancestors.

To those people I say “Go board up your own damn windows.”)
I’m not worried about radical Muslims that hate America. I’m worried about radical so-called patriots that are willing to tear down the foundational principles of this nation while claiming to do us good.

By their words and their deeds, it’s clear. They hate us.

And no, I’m not talking about the Muslims. And no, I’m not pointing the finger at ALL conservatives or Right-Wing thinkers.

But to the Trump supporters, to those who agree with committing war crimes against civilians, to those vocal, hateful voices out there bringing disgrace upon your party and the nation you claim you love:

Congratulations. You’ve become the thing you fear and hate most: An ideologically-driven body of angry people espousing violent, radical, anti-American declarations and policies without regard for any conflicting evidence or higher good.

You’re the ones not only casting away traditional American values but actively coming against them.

Dear Right Wing: You do yourselves no favors by freaking out at the mention of the word “gay.”

“OMG President Obama nominated an openly gay man to become Secretary of the Army!”

“It’s obvious pandering to the homosexual agenda!”

“God help us!”

“Why not someone qualified? Because he doesn’t care about the troops!”
If you’re going to complain about them, at least look at his qualifications. Look at his past positions and how his performance measured up in his job, not in his orientation. There’s a world of information available at our fingertips; there’s no reason to miss these facts.

But facts don’t stir up the emotions and get the voters scared about where this country is headed, so I guess we’ll keep going with ignorance and blinded, slavish emphasis on one or two cultural issues.

Fanning previously served as Chief of Staff of the Department of Defense. He helped manage Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter’s transition, built his leadership team, and oversaw the day-to-day staff activities of the Office of the Secretary of Defense. He was the Under Secretary of the Air Force from 2013 to 2015 and also served as Acting Secretary of the Air Force from June 21 to December 20, 2013, making him the second longest-tenured Acting Secretary.

– from Wikipedia.

Obviously the guy is only there because of his orientation. And obviously this is one of those hills the GOP is happy to die on. Between Huckabee and Trump, we’re getting such enlightening and presidential points of view.

So it seems pretty obvious to me that, if this is what constitutes for rational political discourse, the Left can start celebrating their 2016 victory early.

Last week, I read a few posts on friends’ FB walls about the Supreme Court hearing arguments for and against legalization of same-sex marriage. Friends who lean left are delighted at the prospect of marriage equality. Friends who lean right lament what seems like a further shifting of moral standards away from Christian values. Some discussions popped up about whether pastors could be prosecuted for refusing to condone or conduct same-sex marriages in their churches.

My gay friends hope that one day the government might afford them the same rights as heterosexuals.

On the other hand, religious friends fear that one day the government might punish the faithful for so-called hate speech and Orwellian “thoughtcrime.” And it makes them all the more adamant that they must stand up and stand firm on their beliefs in the face of the changing culture, no matter the odds stacked against them.

After all, that’s what devout people do.

I pondered the comments and posts I saw from my Christian peers last week, and one question came to mind: Why are we hoping in the law on this issue? What drives this all-consuming (and often failing) Right Wing push to stop same sex marriage? Since when did a law accomplish the kind of redemptive work of grace that we as Christians praise and proclaim?

Consider Paul’s words to the early church in Galatians 3. Did Christ die on the cross to put in place more laws, or to free us from them? Do we get right with God by strict adherence to the law or by grace through faith? If faith makes us right with God, then why would we set our hopes on establishing laws–a system that our holy book clearly shows could not and will not save a soul? And if the law doesn’t save a person, yet saving souls is the very mission Christ gave His church, then why are we putting laws in place to enforce Christian morals and beliefs on a secular nation?

And why limit our law-making to this one area? Why not fight for laws against greed? Pride? Gluttony? Laziness? We talk a lot about “America was founded on Christian values” and people fight to keep the Ten Commandments in front of the courtroom as though that’s the foundation for the American legal system or some kind of Bill of Rights. But where then are the laws against worshiping other gods (Commandment #1) or creating idols and symbols of worship (#2)? Why is our God’s name used in profanity with impunity (#3) and why do so many Americans work on Sunday (#4)? Where are the laws requiring honor and obedience toward parents (#5)? And why aren’t there laws making adultery illegal (#7)? Why can people get away with lying everywhere but when they’re under oath (#9), and why is it acceptable–even encouraged–to desire what belongs to others (#10)?

Admittedly, some of those were once laws on the books in various parts of the country. And over time, they’ve been removed. Not as an evil plot to draw America away from God and drag our nation down to hell, but out of respect for the idea that our government was never intended to legislate a religion, and our religion is founded on the idea that legislating morality is inherently doomed to failure.

Yet we’ll trot out our arguments once more, and claim this is the battleground of the day, the place where the line must be drawn in this culture war.

Well, I find myself waving the white flag. Not at the opposition, as if to say I give up my beliefs or my faith in God or my adherence to biblical principles. But at my own side, to say, “Cease fire, we’re shooting at the wrong target, doing more harm than any perceived good. Lay down the guns, lay down these attempts to use law as a weapon.”

I know most of my side is just going to keep firing away, convinced–in spite of our own doctrine to the contrary–that human nature can be fixed by a legal statute or amendment or court decision. And I’ll probably look to them like an enemy or at least a supporter of the opposition.

But I’ll keep making my own and waving that flag despite the odds. After all, that’s what devout people do, right?

A page about “defending marriage” posted a link to a story saying the UN was working to legalize prostitution. The comment on the link being shared was:

“We need to take back control in the world…”

I assumed the “we” is Christians, given the audience of the page. This made me wonder.

When did we have control?

Were we supposed to have control?

How did religion having control go for the world?

What did Jesus suggest (err… command) that we do in the world?

Did He not know that one day we might have a chance at establishing a Christian nation? Did the possibility slip His mind?

Does He come across as someone who is not very careful with words?

So maybe He said what He meant and vice versa.

Religions holding political power have a history of working out poorly. That’s part of why the first colonists came to America.

There was every opportunity for the Founding Fathers to make America out to be an absolute Christian nation, but they chose not to.

There was every opportunity for Jesus to command His followers to establish a kingdom, but He said, “My kingdom is not of this world.” He could very well have explained theocracy and suggested it as a plan, but we don’t have any indication of that. Governance clearly wasn’t on his personal agenda.

The Bible – particularly the New Testament – portrays the world as fallen, corrupt, and under the spiritual authority of the Devil. For example, Jesus was tempted by the Devil, who offered Jesus all the kingdoms of the world if He would simply bow down and worship the Devil. Jesus didn’t dispute whether Satan had such power to make such an offer. Likewise, Paul wrote about the spiritual darkness in the world, saying it did not belong to God but to our adversary.

We’re living in occupied territory. We’re living behind enemy lines.

Jesus never told us to set up a nation here. We’re not establishing a base or negotiating a treaty. To be clear, our “enemy” is not those people who disagree. We’re not fighting against flesh and blood… or at least that’s what the Bible tells us. Fighting flesh and blood means collateral damage.

Maybe some of us forgot that.

I expressed my concerns about what the post implied. I was told something like, “Our representative government isn’t representing all of us, its people. We have to fight in the political arena to ensure that the representative government actually represents us.”

That sword cuts both ways. That argument can be made by either side.

It basically boils down to “majority rules,” since there are two groups with opposed goals that both seek representation. Majority rules is a system that hasn’t always done well for us either. In the Sixties, the local, vocal majority would have voted to keep segregation going in some parts. That doesn’t make it acceptable or right.

Likewise, from the biblical perspective, we were never told to follow the majority. In fact, Jesus said that’s the road that leads to destruction (Matthew 7:14).

We were meant to be the minority. We were meant to be different.

But we look just like everyone else.

The divorce rate in the church matches that of the world. Western Christianity looks just as self-centered and greedy as the culture it is supposedly working to save. Instead of going and making disciples, we’re going and making new recruits for our political parties. And our young people are leaving the church in droves.